Nikon 9000 ED with Nikon Scan Best Settings for BW Negs?

[ted_c]

<p>From your experience, what are the best scanning settings for scanning 35 mm and 120 BW negatives on a Nikon 9000 ED in Nikon Scan?<br>

*Scan in Neg Color, Neg BW, or Positive?<br>

*Scan in 8 bit or 16 bit?<br>

*Scan in RGB or Grayscale?<br>

*Scan with multi-sampling (1x-16x)?<br>

*Scan with Unsharp Mask?<br>

*Super Fine Scan?<br>

Other settings? Tips and tricks?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>You may want to look at the ColorNeg plugin:</p>

<p>http://www.colorneg.de/virtualgrades.html?lang=en<br>

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=1124</p>

<p>I use it for color work, but it looks as if it's very good for B&W, too.</p>

[mark_savoia2]

<p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Scan in Neg Color, Neg BW, or Positive?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Neg BW</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Scan in 8 bit or 16 bit?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Always 16 bit</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Scan in RGB or Grayscale?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Grayscale</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Scan with multi-sampling (1x-16x)?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1X</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Scan with Unsharp Mask?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Has to be off if real B&W film</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*Super Fine Scan?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >No</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Other settings? Tips and tricks?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mark</p>

<b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed on photo.net</b>

</p>

[ted_c]

<p>Thanks. How about ICE or Scan Image Enhancer, LCH Editor, Color Balance, and Curves? All off? Autofocus?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>ICE does not work with B&W film, unless it's a C-41 B&W film.</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>I can't tell the difference between 1x and 16x sampling. I can see that the scans are different, but I don't have a preference for either. I use 16bit, neg BW, regular (not super fine), without anything turned on. I usually set the exposure and curves manually.</p>

[ted_c]

West Coast Imaging says for its drum scan with BW that 8 bit delivers better results than 16 bit... Seems counter intuitive but

they know what they are doing... Does this relate to what should be done with the Nikon scans?

[steve_mareno]

<p>The only way I could figure it out was to sit down and scan in one image using every possible setting. Took a while, but it worked. However, it really depends on your image, as some images demand a little different approach. For 90% of my B&W, which is all FP4 or Tri-X, the best settings were mono, 16 BIT, RGB, multiscan 4X. Scanning in Mono retains the look of B&W film, whereas if you scan it as a color neg it has more information (marginally) but the look changes. Comes out more like a desaturated color film shot. No like.</p>

[lars_bell]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1808529">Neal Currie</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 05, 2009; 02:57 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I can't tell the difference between 1x and 16x sampling. I can see that the scans are different, but I don't have a preference for either. I use 16bit, neg BW, regular (not super fine), without anything turned on. I usually set the exposure and curves manually.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In many scans it is difficult to tell the difference between 1x and 16x. I put together a little comparison page showing the same scan with everything the same except for the number of samples taken.<br>

<a href="http://www.slidescanningpros.com/price-list/multi-sampling-and-higher-dynamic-range">http://www.slidescanningpros.com/price-list/multi-sampling-and-higher-dynamic-range</a></p>

<p>Lars</p>

 

[roger_smith4]

<p>"West Coast Imaging says for its drum scan with BW that 8 bit delivers better results than 16 bit... Seems counter intuitive but they know what they are doing... Does this relate to what should be done with the Nikon scans?"</p>

<p>Definitely not. The more bits the more manipulation you can do without posterization.</p>